The Supreme Court Party

tapzilla2k

There is no contradiction, you are being obtuse.
Magna Carta and other more recent laws, outlaws charges to access the courts, ensuring access for all to the Justice System. What you are basically asking is why don't lawyers and barristers work for free. It would take you less than 5 minutes to find this using any search engine -
Costs in English law - Wikipedia

It may seem outdated to you, but the Constitution hasn't changed very much in the last 100 years or so. Dicey's work remains seminal in understanding Parliamentary sovereignty and the Constitution i.e. Parliament has the absolute right to create, change or remove laws.  
Until the day comes when we codify the constitution, Dicey will hang around like a bad smell.

IronGiant

Small claims courts have fees.

How is this allowed under Magna Carta?

tapzilla2k

This is going round in circles now,  time to draw it to a close soon.

Jezza99

As do mediation services which are the recommended step to take before using the small claims court.

As the Judge in this case put it -

It guarantees access to the courts, nothing more. Employment Tribunals deal with Employment Law thus fall under the purview of the Justice system. As for the Small Claims Court ? That is a mediation service with a Judge looking at the merits of the claim. It is not strictly speaking a justice matter.

Ruperts slippers

Sorry, that makes no sense.

Employment tribunals deal with employment legislation plus contract law it is true. But these are not criminal courts and not part of the justice system per se.

Small claims courts deal with consumer rights legislation and contract law. Again not criminal law and not directly part of the justice system.

I see no reason why one can charge fees and the other not under Magna Carta.

You really think this is consistent and fair?

Jezza99

No, I am seeking to understand why you have contradicted yourself. I'm not the only one to think so, as per above.

You claim that Magna Carta prevents fees being charged  for a tribunal, but it doesn't prevent court fees?? So when is a court fee not a court fee then? And why does such a fee prevent access to either "speedy" or "fair and equal" (depending on what post of yours you read) justice, when a fee to access a small claims court, or a barrister's fee in a criminal court apparently, according to you, DOES NOT prevent access to speedy/fair/equal justice???

And no, I'm not and never have queried why lawyers don't work for free?! I'm asking why people without the financial means to pay such fees are denied speedy/fair/equal access to justice, when wealthy people who can afford to pay their fees can access speedy/fair/equal justice??

Look, I appreciate you have made a bit of a dogs breakfast of this, It would be much better to admit it and move on, rather than trying to deny what you have clearly already said.

fluxo

If neither of you can understand how Employment law may fall under the concept of justice, there is nothing to discuss, the pair of you are either being deliberately obtuse or lack understanding.

Tap has been quite clear and concise in the presentation of his arguments, deliberate, sarcastic misrepresenting summary of the points made is unduly competitive, no wonder tumble weeds are descending on this part of the forum.

Jezza99

I'd appreciate you pointing out where I've been sarcastic, misrepresented anyone or been anything other than respectful in this debate.

A non-criminal body to rule on employment disputes is little different to a body that rules on consumer disputes.

Both have a body of law to interpret against written and implied contracts. Neither can apply criminal sanctions. They are not fundamentally different.

I'm yet to see a good explanation of why under Magna Carta one can charge fees, but the other not. I've asked for this to be explained and the closest I've had to an answer is your mini rant above which just attacked me rather than supply an actual explanation.

fluxo

No one has disputed that employment law falls under justice. If you had read and understood the thread properly, you would know that we are merely seeking to understand the contradiction of why fees to access an employment tribunal are illegal and contrary to the Magna Carta, but fees to access a small claims court, or to access a criminal court using a fee charging barrister; are neither illegal or contrary to Magna Carta?

Nothing obtuse, sarcastic or misleading in that simple question, surely? Tap has consistently contradicted himself, denied saying what he has said in previous posts, posted links to an obscure 19th century academic,  and  consistently failed to answer a straightforward question.

Jezza99

Ok, I just need to clarify this before someone picks Jezza up on his statement that nobody has said employment laws don't fall under justice and my statement that it was not part of the justice system per se.

I consider the justice system with its foundation under Magna Carter is primarily about criminal law.

There was no employment legislation or consumer rights in the 13th century. Of course there wasn't a criminal court system as we would recognise it either, but there were crimes and the need to recognise equality under the law and natural justice.

So it was the principle of how justice was administered, rather than the form.

Employment and consumer rights come under the civil courts. While formally these are covered by the ministry of justice, I consider them to be very different to criminal courts. Not only due to the difference between beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of probability, but the fact they apply civil penalties (i.e. money) and not criminal penalties.